Trump Is Lighting A Fire Under Coal But Voters Are Electing For Clean Energy

Standing from left: Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette,, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Mary B. Neumayr, with EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler (seated) at signing of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule on June 19, 2019, in Washington. Wheeler signed a repeal of one of the Obama administration’s two biggest climate change initiatives, the Clean Power Plan, adopting an alternative plan that would loosen regulations on the plants. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Trump administration is trying to fulfill its promises to resurrect coal-fired power plants —a move that will likely do little to stem the wave of coal retirements or to prevent natural gas and renewables from advancing.

On Wednesday, it repealed the Obama administration’s carbon-cutting rule and replaced it with one to allow states to set those standards. While the states would have three years to devise their plans, the move will meet immediate resistance by opposition groups that will take their case to court. And if Trump is defeated in 2020 as the current polls suggest, this whole exercise will be have been naught.

“By repealing the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with a perverse version, the Trump administration is putting American lives and our economy at risk, and ensuring that our country will forego the economic opportunities of a clean energy future,” says U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-Delaware), and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Since 2011, 289 of the 530 coal plants were shut down. And the country may be on track to close the rest of them by 2030. Even if this policy survives, its most far-reaching effect would be to extend the lives of older plants.

The reality is that natural gas plants will continue to replace coal units. And while that fuel releases roughly half of the emissions as does coal, it has surpassed coal in terms of carbon emissions in 2015; natural gas has also eclipsed coal to become the most prevalent fuel used to create electricity in the United States in 2016, generating about 34% of all power compared to 27% for coal, says the Energy Information Administration.

Before Trump's new policy, the energy agency said that CO2 emissions tied to energy usage would remain constant through 2050. The study had projected those emissions to be 5,019 million metric tons in 2050, or 4% below their 2018 value, as emissions associated with coal and petroleum consumption fall and emissions from natural gas consumption rise.

The Clean Power Plan would cut CO2 by 32% by 2030, from a 2005 baseline. And it permits such strategies as exchanging coal for cleaner fuels and trading carbon credits among utilities. Under the regulation, called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the states could ease those rules and keep older plants alive longer.

“Unlike the Clean Power Plan, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule adheres to the Clean Air Act and gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide a dependable, diverse supply of electricity that all Americans can afford,” says EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

Getty

What Decade Is It?

The EPA administrator, who had been a coal lobbyist prior to running the EPA, adds that he expects CO2 releases to keep falling under this regulation — by 35% using 2005 as a baseline. But such a decline is not because of this rule but in spite of it: In 2005, coal had reached its pinnacle and was beginning to retreat: it made up half of the fuels used to generate electricity. So, using that year as a baseline is meaningless. More aggressive approaches are needed, according to climate scientists, to limit temperature increases.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act—something that EPA made official in 2009, saying it was a danger to public health and welfare. And in 2014, the high court upheld that so-called endangerment finding that is the law of the land. So, even the Trump administration is bound by this law.

But how would Trump’s climate positions affect both electric utilities and corporate America? Both are taking the long view and realize that the globe is trending steadily to low-carbon fuels — that such moves are not just good for the environment but also for their public images.

Right now, 48% of the Fortune 500 and 63% of the Fortune 100 are vowing to cut their greenhouse gases, up their use of green energy or improve their energy efficiencies, according to David Gardiner and Associates. Consider the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance, which is made up of such companies as Google, Facebook, Walmart, General Motors, Disney and Salesforce: They are targeting 60,000 megawatts of non-utility renewables deployments by 2025.

“At a time when the economic costs of climate change continue to rise, the EPA with this plan wants to prop up older, dirtier energy sources that will only exacerbate the costs we all will bear,” says Grant Carlisle, director of advocacy for the nonpartisan business group E2. “If the EPA is truly interested in affordable, clean energy, its Affordable Clean Energy Rule ought to focus on expanding renewable energy and energy efficiency that actually is cheaper, cleaner and creating millions of jobs across the country.”

According to E2’s Opportunity Lost report from 2017, eliminating the Clean Power Plan could cost the United States as many as 560,000 jobs and $52 billion in foregone gross domestic product, or lost wealth.

Indeed, what escapes the president is that as the nation is ushering in the new energy economy, it is bringing with it a wide range of new jobs associated with clean fuels and modern technologies. Americans, though, will be the ultimate arbiters — and will vote in 2020 to either rewind the clock or to embrace change and continue the momentum.